Top Opinion

I think the voters in the US need to take a lesson from Europe. Redistributing weslth is not the answer to our financial woes. I find it truly amazing how the left can try to demonize the wealthy like yet, isn't that very goal the "American Dream"?

Lay in the bleedin' bed that you make for yourselves. I've no sympathy for them. Here's a good lesson for all those socialists who want to do the same here. Sit back and watch the train wreck about to unfold and learn

This looks like the beginning of the end of France.
Is this Newly elected President out of his mind?
Does he think that money just grows on trees the way all the other leftists do?
Does France have a Government that will spend money with such efficiency and fairness?
Does this clown believe that France's wealthiest won't leave France to horde their money in other country's?
We'll see rioting in the streets of France with this plan, no doubt.

Not to mention that the cultural diversity in America is vastly different then those three relatively homogenous nations. And, our system creates two levels of government - state and federal - to increase the political diversity. These details affect greatly why you can't just cut another nations set up and place it in America.

As for the NFL, its a sport. Any socialist trappings hardly apply to teams and owners actually earning profit and apply for to the basic game on the field as each team can only spend a certain amount of dollars per player. This is done so all teams, theoretically, can be competitive. Owners still earn billions of dollars while potential player/worker salaries are depressed.

I think the voters in the US need to take a lesson from Europe. Redistributing weslth is not the answer to our financial woes. I find it truly amazing how the left can try to demonize the wealthy like yet, isn't that very goal the "American Dream"?

Horse Pucky....First, WHAT Austerity are You talking about... we don't have any...Second, The top tax rate was seriously dropped in 1982 to 50% and down to 39.60% during the Clinton years, then the current 35% in 2003. We have had many "golden times" during that period.You're are the koolaid drinker.

Golden times 2001-2006 was because banks put 2 trillion in new housing equity doubling home prices in a record short time. The resulting bubble when burst took down the world's economy as bankers across the globe followed our lead getting 10% returns on 30-1 leveraging opposed to a normal 12-1. Canada did not let banks do this and today have the strongest banks in the world. Facts bear this out regardless of conservative media BS. Banking taxes in 2006 hit an alltime US high. The recession from this housing bubble began in late 2007 with a crash in the 4th qtr of 08 that lost 8 million jobs in a year.

P.S. published rates are not paid rates. Under Ike the top rate was 92%, the paid rate 52%. Under Dubya 35%, the paid rate by the 1%, 18%.

First, it wasn't the banks, it was Barney Frank and (Freddie Mac/Fannies Mae) that pushed for the sale of houses to people that couldn't afford the. It was Progressive Liberals that caused the entire housing bubbleBarney Frank June 27, 2005 - House Floor

"We have, I think, an excessive degree of concern right now about home ownership and it's role in the economy. Obviously speculation is never a good thing. But those who argue that housing prices are now at the point of a bubble seem to me to be missing a very important point. Unlike previous examples we have had where substantial excessive inflation of prices later caused some problems. We are talking here about an entity, home ownership, homes, where there is not the degree of leverage that we have seen elsewhere. This is not the dot com situation. We had problems with people having invested in business plans for which there was no reality, with people building fiber optic cable for which there was no need. Homes that are occupied may see an ebb and flow in the price at a certain percentage level but you're not going to see a collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble. So those of us on our committee in particular will continue to push toward home ownership."Barney Franks 'change of heart.....Barney Frank's rep...

First, it wasn't the banks, it was Barney Frank and (Freddie Mac/Fannies Mae) that pushed for the sale of houses to people that couldn't afford the. It was Progressive Liberals that caused the entire housing bubbleBarney Frank June 27, 2005 - House Floor

"We have, I think, an excessive degree of concern right now about home ownership and it's role in the economy. Obviously speculation is never a good thing. But those who argue that housing prices are now at the point of a bubble seem to me to be missing a very important point. Unlike previous examples we have had where substantial excessive inflation of prices later caused some problems. We are talking here about an entity, home ownership, homes, where there is not the degree of leverage that we have seen elsewhere. This is not the dot com situation. We had problems with people having invested in business plans for which there was no reality, with people building fiber optic cable for which there was no need. Homes that are occupied may see an ebb and flow in the price at a certain percentage level but you're not going to see a collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble. So those of us on our committee in particular will continue to push toward home ownership."Barney Franks 'change of heart.....Barney Frank's reply to his quotes on the Daily Show July 13, 2009:

".... But not for low income people. Home ownership for people that could afford it"

Second, Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt. The 2000 law was signed by Bill Clinton.

No, that is not the American dream I was taught.When will you learn that the quest for more, more, and more money is not what life is all about. It just hurts everyone within the society-it is not the christian thing to do.

I, and the leftists with whom I associate, do not demonize anyone intentionally. If it appears as though we are demonizing them it is as a direct consequence of the reality which you are encountering. We do not exaggerate, falsify or misconstrue information for the purpose of promoting our perspectives.

If the American Dream consists merely of accumulating vast quantities of wealth, then I would prefer to stay conscious and awake. Because I am of the ever growing opinion in this world that there are grander features to life than the mere acquisition of funds. The greatest oppressor is not government, but money-- The desperate lack of it and the boundless presence of it.

Did I say that "American Dream consists merely of accumulating vast quantities of wealth"? I don't believe so. I said the American Dream is to be successful. It is amusing to me that so many of the "entitled" who criticize the wealthy but are right at the front of the line buying lottery tickets & the like to join their ranks....Just saying.

edited to add...If all you liberals love the socialist lifestyle so much why don't you just move to Europe and leave the US alone

You didn't say that, my apologies. Although, I wasn't implying that you had. You said to be successful and financially stable. Although those are both extremely vague.

"It is amusing to me that so many of the "entitled" who criticize the wealthy but are right at the front of the line buying lottery tickets & the like to join their ranks....Just saying. "

Hmmm...it is better live as a lion for a day than as a sheep for a lifetime. Understanding that we cannot change the system, the least we can do is join the ranks of our foes and live comfortably. I would not turn down a million dollars if it landed on my lap, and I would pursue the million dollars if I knew that I stood a chance of acquiring it (not through a lottery, that's irrational).

This does not make a hypocrite, this does not weaken my principles, this makes a realist. I am stuck in this capitalist world, and as a poor individual there is little I can do to change it.

In GOP fantasy land every child can borrow $20,000 from their parents to take a shot. In the real world mom and dad pinch pennies to make ends meet.

Agrarian JusticeThomas Paine1795-96 / Part 1

In this work, his last great pamphlet published in the winter of 1795-1796, Paine continued the discussion he began in Part II of the Rights of Man of the problem of the elimination of poverty and developed further his proposals for limiting the accumulation of property. The crux of the entire question of eliminating poverty, he points out, lay in the institution of private property, for this principle was the source of the evils of society. Landed property and private property, he argued, were made possible only by the operation of society since whatever property men accumulated beyond their own labor came from the fact that they lived in society. "... The accumulation of personal property," he wrote, "is, in many instances, the effect of paying too little for the labor that produced it; the consequence of which is, that the working hand perishes in old age, and the employer abounds in affluence." God had never opened a land office, he held, from which perpetual deeds to the earth should be issued. He spoke, he boldly declared, for "all those who hive been thrown out of their nat...

In GOP fantasy land every child can borrow $20,000 from their parents to take a shot. In the real world mom and dad pinch pennies to make ends meet.

Agrarian JusticeThomas Paine1795-96 / Part 1

In this work, his last great pamphlet published in the winter of 1795-1796, Paine continued the discussion he began in Part II of the Rights of Man of the problem of the elimination of poverty and developed further his proposals for limiting the accumulation of property. The crux of the entire question of eliminating poverty, he points out, lay in the institution of private property, for this principle was the source of the evils of society. Landed property and private property, he argued, were made possible only by the operation of society since whatever property men accumulated beyond their own labor came from the fact that they lived in society. "... The accumulation of personal property," he wrote, "is, in many instances, the effect of paying too little for the labor that produced it; the consequence of which is, that the working hand perishes in old age, and the employer abounds in affluence." God had never opened a land office, he held, from which perpetual deeds to the earth should be issued. He spoke, he boldly declared, for "all those who hive been thrown out of their natural inheritance by the introduction of the system of landed property." It is of some interest to note that Thomas Jefferson observed, in a letter to Rev. James Madison in February, 1787: "Whenever there are in a country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate the natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided for those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed.